set_deck_card_quantity

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is absolute (not delta), that a quantity of 0 removes the row, and that the tool requires the IWMM_API_KEY. This is sufficient for safe invocation, though more detail about side effects could be beneficial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: three sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then provides the critical details about quantity zero behavior, an alternative tool, and a requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use it and how to invoke it. It covers the key constraints and alternatives. Lack of output schema description is acceptable since the tool is a mutation; the response is likely a success indicator or similar default.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema, such as reinforcing that quantity is absolute. The schema already describes each parameter adequately, so the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('set the absolute quantity'), the resource ('a card + board in a deck'), and distinguishes from delta operations by explicitly calling out 'not a delta'. It also differentiates from the sibling tool 'add_deck_card' by mentioning that tool is for incrementing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use add_deck_card to increment instead.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool versus the alternative. It also implies that this tool should be used when setting an absolute quantity, not for incremental updates.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.